ODERN  Taxation  and  the 
Single  Tax^ 


A  PAPER 


read  before  the  association  of  MASSACHUSETTS  ASSESSORS, 
AT  ITS  annual  meeting,  IN  THE  STATE  HOUSE, 

BOSTON,  DECEMBER  15,  1893 


BY  THE  PRESIDENT 

THOMAS  HILLS 


'ii  ■ 


Twenty-eight  Years  a  Member,  and  Twenty-five  Years  Chairman,  of  the  Board  of 
Assessors  of  the  City  of  Boston 


Modern  Taxation  and  the 


Single  Tax 

roxpurt; 


A  PAPER 

read  before  the  association  of  MASSACHUSETTS  ASSESSORS, 
AT  ITS  ANNUAL  MEETING,  IN  THE  STATE  HOUSE, 

BOSTON,  DECEMBER  15,  1893 


BY  THE  PRESIDENT 

THOMAS  HILLS 

Twenty-eight  Years  a  Member,  and  Twenty-five  Years  Chairman,  of  the  Board  of 
Assessors  of  the  City  of  Boston 


bg  of  tjje  *^S0oc{ation 


BOSTON 

Press  of  Geo.  H.  Ellis,  i4i  Franklin  Street 
1894 


I"" 


ur\i'i  /M'Moa.'  '^'7^0,^  2-, 

HSbSvr^ 


Uhit^-b 


ctjvr,  ISr,l6y4.. 


/yiti,<| 


MODERN  TAXATION  AND  THE  SINGLE  TAX. 


In  his  “Wealth  of  Nations,”  Adam  Smith,  writing  in  the 
same  year  in  which  Jefferson  wrote  the  declaration  of  our 
independence,  said  that,  “the  subjects  of  every  State  ought 
to  contribute  toward  the  support  of  the  government  as 
nearly  as  possible  in  proportion  to  their  respective  abilities  ; 
that  is,  in  proportion  to  the  revenue  which  they  respectively 
enjoy  under  the  protection  of  the  State.  In  the  observa¬ 
tion  or  neglect  of  this  maxim  consists  what  is  called  the 
equality  or  inequality  of  taxation.”  The  eminent  political 
economist  of  our  own  times,  John  Stuart  Mill,  has  said  that, 
“  equity  of  taxation  means  apportioning  the  contribution  of 
each  person  towards  the  expenses  of  government,  so  that  he 
shall  feel  neither  more  nor  less  inconvenience  from  his  share 
of  the  payment  than  every  other  person  experiences  from 
his.  This  standard,  like  other  standards  of  perfection,  can¬ 
not  be  completely  realized;  but  the  first  object  in  every 
practical  discussion  should  be  to  know  what  perfection  is.” 

The  different  systems  of  revenue  reflect  the  principles 
which  underlie  the  form  of  government  under  which  they 
exist.  Take  the  taxation  of  England,  for  example.  By  a 
report  of  Mr.  Goschen,  recently  one  of  Lord  Salisbury’s 
^  cabinet,  it  appears  that,  for  a  year  when  the  total  imperial 

tax  for  England  and  Wales  amounted  to  ;£'46, 5 63,000,  less 

•  than  ^5,700,000,  or  about  12  per  cent,  of  the  whole  amount, 

f  was  based  on  real  estate.  Of  the  remaining  ^41,000,000, 

•  over  ;£’30,ooo,ooo  were  collected  from  customs  and  excise, 

—  mainly  from  wines,  liquors,  tea,  coffee,  sugar,  and  to- 
bacco.  Of  the  ^5,700,000  on  real  estate,  1,78 5, 000  was 

7  •  income  tax  on  rents  received,  which  the  landlords  were 

prohibited  by  law  from  placing  on  their  tenants,  so  that 
less  than  10  per  cent,  of  the  whole  sum  was  a  direct  tax 
upon  real  estate,  of  which  proportion  about  4J  per  cent,  of 
the  total  imperial  assessment  was  carried  by  occupiers  as 
a  house  and  land  tax. 


4 


The  local  taxation  of  the  same  year,  corresponding  to  our 
State,  county,  and  city  or  town  taxes,  amounted  to  some 
^16,000,000.  Henry  Fawcett,  who,  though  totally  blind 
from  his  twenty-fifth  year,  became  the  professor  of  political 
economy  in  the  University  of  Cambridge  fifteen  years  later, 
and  subsequently  member  of  Parliament  and  Postmaster- 
General, —  an  undoubted  authority, —  says  that,  “With  a 
few  exceptions,  all  local  taxation  is  confined  to  levying  rates 
on  land,  houses,  and  business  premises.  The  exceptions  to 
which  I  refer  are  certain  tolls  and  dues  ;  and  in  a  few  in¬ 
stances  some  commodity,  such  as  coal,  is  subjected  to  a 
special  local  tax.” 

When  we  know  that  the  direct  tax  on  vacant  land,  by  a 
law  that  was  enacted  in  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  is 
based  not  on  actual,  but  on  rental  or  productive  value,  we 
can  understand  how  the  nobility  and  gentry  of  Great  Britain 
can  hold  their  vast  tracts  unoccupied.  With  farming  land 
taxed  upon  a  rental  basis  and  with  the  holdings  of  the 
wealthy  classes  taxed  as  farming  land,  it  is  very  evident  that 
the  great  burden  of  local  assessments,  and  about  2  per 
cent,  of  the  imperial  or  national  taxes,  are  carried  by  the  oc¬ 
cupiers  of  “  houses  and  business  premises.” 

No  wonder  that  Mr.  Goschen,  in  the  report  referred  to, 
stated  “  that  house  property  in  England  is  very  heavily 
taxed.”  And,  when  we  recall  the  figures  that  show  over  65 
per  cent,  of  the  national  taxes  borne  by  the  consumers  of 
wine,  liquor,  tea,  coffee,  sugar,  and  tobacco,  it  is  easy  to  see 
what  classes  carry  the  tax  burden  of  England. 

The  fund  from  which  this  immense  percentage  of  assess¬ 
ments,  both  imperial  and  local,  is  drawn,  is  shown  by  the 
statement  of  Mr.  R.  Dudley  Baxter,  who  twenty  years  ago 
put  the  annual  income  of  the  United  Kingdom  at  ;£8i4,- 
119,000.  Of  this  sum,  larger  than  the  national  debt  of 
Great  Britain,  he  puts  the  income  of  those  who  receive  not 
exceeding  ;£300  each  at  ;£ 5 17,000,000,  or  63  per  cent,  of 
the  whole  amount. 

Take  an  illustration  to  show  the  weight  and  bearing  of 
German  taxation.  An  American  correspondent  writing 
from  Berlin,  a  few  years  since,  gives  us  an  example  from 
among  his  acquaintance.  He  speaks  of  “a  skilled  work- 


5 


man,  a  thermometer-maker.  In  the  United  States  he  would 
earn  two  or  two  and  a  half  dollars  a  day,  and  that  would  be 
low.  He  can  make  in  Berlin  a  thaler  [75  cents]  a  day  ;  300 
days  a  year  [if  not  sick],  300  thalers, —  a  year’s  wages 
^225.  He  must  pay  for  four  rooms  in  the  fourth  story 
160  thalers.  Then  he  must  pay  a  tax  on  his  rental  of  30 
thalers,  an  income  tax  of  6  thalers,  school  tax,  military  tax, 
etc.,  at  least  10  thalers  ;  and,  with  68  per  cent,  of  his  in¬ 
come  gone  for  rent  and  taxes,  he  has  94  thalers  [^70.50] 
left  for  food,  clothing,  and  the  other  expenses  of  himself 
and  family.” 

The  producers  in  this  community,  the  correspondent  as¬ 
serts,  “  have  to  bear  nearly  the  whole  burden  of  local  and 
general  taxation.” 

Those  who  founded  our  Commonwealth  had  lived  under 
the  land-tax  law  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  had  felt  the  weight 
of  the  government  burdens  as  they  settled  down  from  the 
landlords,  and  remained  with  crushing  force  when  they 
reached  the  class  that  could  not  further  transfer  them. 
That  law  remains  in  England  to-day  as  it  was  when  the 
Puritans  left  for  America;  and  then  as  now,  in  Old  Eng¬ 
land,  it  could  be  said,  to  use  the  words  of  Mr.  R.  Dudley 
Baxter,  just  quoted  as  one  of  her  distinguished  statisticians, 
“  rates  reach  everybody.  .  .  .  They  fall  heaviest  on  the  de¬ 
serving  poor  who  are  struggling  to  keep  above  pauperism. 
They  press  with  great  severity  on  workingmen  who  own  and 
occupy  their  own  land  and  houses.” 

With  the  recollection  of  their  bitter  experience,  the  rulers 
of  the  Puritan  State  formulated  the  principles  of  a  republi¬ 
can  system  of  taxation,  when  the  General  Court  in  May, 
1634,  “ordered  that,  in  all  rates  and  public  charges,  the 
town  shall  have  respect  to  levy  every  man  according  to  his 
estate,  and  witFTconsideration  of  all  other  his  abilities  what¬ 
soever,  and  not  according  to  the  number  of  his  persons.” 

This  is  essentially  the  Adam  Smith  and  John  Stuart  Mill 
rule,  given  to  the  world  nearly  a  hundred  years  before  the 
earlier  of  these  writers  was  born.  It  has  been  adopted  by 
all  of  our  sister  States  ;  and,  with  such  modifications  as  their 
varying  interests  require,  it  remains  the  fundamental  princi¬ 
ple  of  the  tax  laws  of  all  the  States  of  the  Union.  It  admits 


6 


of  but  one  construction.  It  means  that  the  public  charges 
shall  be  borne  by  every  member  of  the  community  in  pro¬ 
portion  to  his  ability  to  bear  them,  and  not  by  methods  of 
assessment  that  transfer  the  burden  “according  to  the  num¬ 
ber  of  his  persons”  ;  that  is,  by  the  consumption  of  his 
family. 

While  it  is  true  that  this  principle  of  taxation  remains  as 
the  basis  of  the  tax  laws  of  all  our  American  States,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  legislation  in  the  interest  of  their  own 
communities,  exemptions  granted  by  the  national  govern¬ 
ment,  or  gained  by  special  classes,  and  the  non-enforcement, 
or  the  difficulty  of  enforcement,  of  the  laws  for  the  assess¬ 
ment  of  personal  property  have  in  all  our  States  disturbed 
the  relation  between  real  and  personal  estate,  so  that,  while 
in  theory  the  rule  remains,  in  practice,  the  land  and  build¬ 
ings  in  all  our  communities  bear  a  disproportionate  share  of 
the  burden.* 

*The  proportion  as  shown  by  the  assessment  of  1893  for  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts 
and  all  its  cities  and  towns  was  as  follows :  — 

Assessed  by  Cities  and  Towns. 

Valuation  real  estate,  $1,839,663,813  ;  tax  on  real  estate, . $26,647,153 


Valuation 
Personal  Estate. 

Personal  estate, . $588,675,216 

Tax  on  poUs, .  . 


Taxes. 

$8,411,016 

1.339.123 


Assessed  by  the  Tax  Co.m.missioner  or  other  Agents  of  the  State. 


ValjM-tion  ^ 

Personal  Estate.  axes 

Corporate  taxable  excess, . $243,582,089  $3,726,740 

Bank  stock  excess, .  77,618,212  474.960 

Sa\nng-bank  deposits  ta.xable,  .  .  .  .  228,730,018  1,143,650 

Massachusetts  Hospital  Life  Ins.  Co.,  10,862,137  54.3io 

Life  insurance  values, .  57,122,117  142.805 

Insurance  premiums, .  13,872,108  246,732 

Foreign  railways, .  53.498,830  53,498 

Trust  companies  deposits, .  1,339,069  20,421 

Mining  companies, .  7.956,830  3.722 

Gas  and  electric  light  companies,  .  ,  -  12,175 

Foreign  mortgage  companies,  .  .  .  -  5.288 

Railroad  companies  tax, .  24,122 

Railroad  inquest  tax, .  i,794 

Inspector  of  gas  metres, .  .  3.942 

Liquor  licenses  (about), .  2,000,000 

$1,283,256,626  Tax  on  personal  estate. 
Total  tax,  .  . 

Proportion  of  taxes  from  real  estate,  58.9  per  cent. 

Proportion  of  taxes  from  personal  estate,  41.1  per  cent. 


[7,664,298 


7 


Yet,  notwithstanding  the  great  advantages  which  the 
holders  of  intangible  personal  property  enjoy  by  the  exemp¬ 
tion  of  those  important  classes  of  credit  property  —  United 
States  bonds  and  real  estate  mortgages  —  from  all  assess¬ 
ments,  many  able  theorists  are  endeavoring  to  persuade  our 
community  and  its  representatives  in  the  legislature  to  give 
them  still  greater  advantages  at  the  expense  of  the  business 
men  and  real  estate  owners  and  occupiers. 

Some  ask  that  all  credit  property  may  be  relieved  from 
assessment ;  others  claim  that  all  personal  property,  tan¬ 
gible  and  intangible,  should  be  exempt,  leaving  real  estate 
to  carry  the  whole  load ;  while  still  another  school,  of  whom 
Henry  George  is  the  acknowledged  leader,  would  give  ex¬ 
emption,  not^nly  to  all  personal  estate,  but  to  all  buildings 
and  other  structures,  and  lay  the  whole  burden  of  assess¬ 
ments  on  the  land  alone. 

Exemptions  which  are  departures  from  the  principle  upon 
which  our  fathers  founded  our  system  of  taxation  make  it 
difficult  to  justify  the  imposition  of  assessments  upon  sim¬ 
ilar  classes  of  property. 

It  is  hard  to  argue  for  a  tax  upon  the  bonds  of  our  own 
Commonwealth  and  those  of  her  cities  and  towns,  while 
those  of  the  nation  are  exempt ;  still  harder,  when  secured 
debts  are  free  from  taxation,  to  claim  that  unsecured  debts 
should  be  taxed  ;  yet  harder  if  the  next  step  is  gained,  and 
the  investments  of  our  citizens  in  railroads  and  factories  out 
of  the  State,  that  build  up  rival  States  and  communities  to 
compete  with  us  for  the  business  by  which  we  live,  are 
relieved  from  assessment,  to  claim  that  we  can  justly  tax 
those  who  stand  by  our  own  Commonwealth,  and  with  home 
investments  employ  our  people  and  build  up  the  community 
in  which  we  dwell. 

The  revenue  reformers,  as  they  prefer  to  be  called,  are 
generally  holders  of  those  classes  of  property  the  exemption 
of  which  they  deem  essential  to  the  public  welfare ;  and,  as  a 
rule,  in  their  computations  as  to  the  effect  of  their  schemes, 
they  make  a  mistake  by  claiming  that  the  rate  of  taxation  on 
real  estate  and  other  property  they  would  leave  for  assess- 
'ment  would  rise  only  in  the  proportion  that  the  valuation  of 
the  class  of  property  they  desire  relieved,  bears  to  that  of  all 
property  liable  to  taxation. 


8 


Following  exemptions,  the  rate  of  taxation  will  increase  in 
more  than  mathematical  proportion  ;  and  with  each  added 
exemption  it  will  rise  in  still  greater  ratio  than  at  the  last 
increase.  The  reason  is  not  difficult  to  understand.  If  a 
class  of  small  amount  is  removed  from  the  basis  of  taxation, 
it  will  not  affect  the  rate  much  more  than  if  it  had  been  acci¬ 
dentally  omitted  by  the  assessors,  to  be  restored  at  the  next 
annual  assessment.  But,  as  class  after  class  is  added  to  the 
list  of  non-taxable  property,  the  rate  will  rise,  not  only  in 
consequence  of  the  loss  of  valuation  from  the  tax  basis,  but 
by  the  depreciation  in  value  of  that  property  which  remains 
within  it  to  bear  the  added  burden. 

Hon.  Henry  Winn,  who  a  few  years  since  represented  a 
Connecticut  River  district  in  the  Massachusetts  Senate,  and 
is  now  the  Mayor  of  Malden,  has  studied  the  questions  of 
local  taxation  more  thoroughly  than  any  other  person  with 
whom  I  am  acquainted.  His  little  book  of  seventy-three 
pages,  entitled  “  Property  in  Land,”  is  an  able  refutation  of 
the  theories  of  those  writers  who  would  put  all  taxes  upon 
land  values.  I  consider  him  good  authority  upon  any  ques¬ 
tion  of  local  assessment.  Following  exemptions,  he  recog¬ 
nizes  the  force  of  the  causes  that  produce  the  effect  of 
depreciating  the  value  of  property  remaining  assessable.  In 
a  recent  speech  before  a  legislative  committee  he  stated  his 
belief  that  the  remission  of  all  taxes  upon  personal  property 
would  lessen  the  value  of  the  real  estate  of  Massachusetts 
$110,000,000,  and  raise  the  average  rate  of  taxation  in  the 
State  from  $15.06  to  $27.29  per  thousand. 

Since  the  law  limiting  the  appropriation  for  cities  to  a 
percentage  of  the  valuation,  has  been  in  force,  the  rate  of 
Boston  has  averaged  $13.00.  By  an  entirely  different  course 
of  reasoning  from  that  adopted  by  Mr.  Winn,  I  found  that 
the  taxation  of  real  estate  alone  in  our  city  would  increase 
its  rate  to  about  $25.00  per  thousand.  The  effect  of  the 
exemption  of  all  personal  property  from  assessment  would 
seem  to  be  to  nearly  double  the  tax  upon  real  estate,  and 
largely  to  reduce  its  value. 

With  such  probable  results,  it  would  seem  hardly  worth 
our  time  and  thought  to  follow  Mr.  George’s  scheme  to  raise 
all  taxes  upon  the  value  of  the  land  alone.  But  the  theory 


9 


that  holds  that  the  revenues  of  the  public  can  be  drawn  from 
this  source  in  ample  measure,  and  that,  when  the  law  shall 
free  everything  but  land  from  assessment,  poverty  will  be  un¬ 
known,  has  been  so  plausibly  stated,  and  has  been  accepted 
by  so  many  people,  that  our  time  will  be  well  spent  in  its 
consideration. 

The  reform  proposed  is  radical.  It  is  nothing  less  than  the 
confiscation  of  all  land  values,  by  taking  annually,  under  the 
name  and  in  the  form  of  a  tax,  the  entire  income  of  that  class 
of  property. 

The  wrong  of  the  present  system  must  be  great,  and  the 
benefit  to  future  generations  manifest,  to  justify  the  redis¬ 
tribution  of  the  property  of  the  world,  and  the  abrogation  of 
rights  that  have  existed  and  been  recognized  by  every  civ¬ 
ilized  nation  since  governments  were  instituted. 

The  necessity  of  the  change  should  be  pressing,  since,  to 
pass  from  one  state  of  social  order  to  the  other,  not  only  must 
the  owners  be  despoiled,  but  so  intimately  is  every  class  con¬ 
nected  with  the  land  upon  which  we  live,  that  all  except 
those  whose  wealth  is  not  in  real  estate  and  the  paupers 
must  yield  something  of  their  accumulations  or  comforts 
before  society  has  settled  down  to  the  new  order  of  things. 

That  this  statement  may  not  stand  simply  as  the  opinion 
of  the  speaker,  I  quote  an  authority  the  followers  of  Mr. 
George  cannot  discredit. 

In  an  address  to  the  workingmen  of  Boston,  Feb.  22,  1889, 
that  gentleman  admitted  that,  if  his  scheme  was  at  once  put 
into  operation,  it  might  fail  the  life  insurance  companies  and 
savings-banks.  He  also  said  that  in  an  agricultural  commu¬ 
nity  it  might  be  difficult  to  raise  the  money  thought  to  be 
needed  for  municipal  wants,  but,  as  such  a  people  could  only 
have  what  the  plan  would  furnish,  they  must  economize  and 
bring  their  wants  within  their  means.  But  he  thought  that 
such  a  blissful  state  of  society  would  follow  the  adoption  of 
his  methods  that  full  compensation  would  be  obtained  for 
all  the  suffering  that  must  be  endured  to  reach  that  haven  of 
rest  where  poverty  would  be  unknown.* 

*  Question. —  How  would  it  be  with  the  farmers  in  the  agricultural  districts,  where  the 
value  of  land  would  add  to  the  expenses  of  the  town  in  making,  for  instance,  sanitary  improve¬ 
ments  ? 

A  nswer. —  I  think  where  the  value  of  the  land  is  low  you  will  find  the  necessities  of  the  town 
very  low  ;  where  the  value  of  the  land  increases,  the  necessities  of  the  town  also  increase ;  and  I 


10 


The  theory  starts  with  the  proposition  that,  as  all  men  are 
created  equal,  all  have  an  equal  right  to  the  soil,  which  is  the 
gift  of  God  to  all  his  children.  The  answer  to  this  would 
seem  to  be  that  men  are  not  created  equal.  To  one  are 
given  five  talents,  to  another  two,  and  to  another  one. 
Some  are  born  in  Greenland,  where  the  snow  that  makes 
their  hut  covers  the  sterile  land  for  three-quarters  of  the 
year,  and  life  is  one  continued  struggle  for  existence  against 
the  forces  of  nature.  Others  first  see  the  light  where  per¬ 
petual  summer  and  a  fertile  soil  relieve  them  of  all  thought 
for  the  morrow.  It  was  Abraham  Lincoln  who  said,  “  Every 
man  is  born  with  the  right  to  make  himself  the  equal  of  any 
other  man,  if  he  can.”  And  that  is  as  near  equality  as  we 
start  in  life. 

That  all  may  appropriate  land  in  reasonable  quantities 
has  been  the  rule  in  this  and,  practically,  in  all  new  coun¬ 
tries.  The  price  of  $1.25  an  acre  for  Western  land  is  not 
the  value  of  it :  it  is  the  reimbursement  of  the  expense  of 
surveys  and  governmental  regulation. 

But  when  land  has  been  taken  with  the  consent  of  the 
government,  whose  officers  are  the  agents  of  the  community, 
and  it  has  been  improved  by  the  labor  of  its  occupants,  no 
stranger,  not  even  society,  has  a  right  to  dispossess  the 
holder  without  compensation  for  the  value  labor  has  created. 

Man  was  placed  on  the  earth,  not  only  to.  live  on  it,  but  by 
his  labor  to  subdue  it.  The  result  of  that  labor  on  land  is 
as  much  his  property,  to  enjoy,  to  transmit  to  his  posterity, 
or  to  sell  to  another,  as  is  the  result  of  his  labor  in  build¬ 
ing  a  house  or  making  a  plough. 

Suppose  a  man  sells  wild  fruit  he  has  gathered,  and  buys  a 
horse  for  $100,  and  makes  a  wagon  worth  the  same  amount. 
It  is  simple  robbery  for  the  government  to  take  it  from  him 
without  purchase,  although  it  may  be  employed  for  the  bene¬ 
fit  of  all.  Has  that  man  any  better  title  to  his  team,  or  its 
value  of  $200,  than  a  tiller  of  the  soil  has  to  the  $1,000  value 

have  no  doubt  that  in  Massachusetts,  as  in  all  our  States,  this  tax  would  be  sufficient  to  bear  the 
legitimate  town  expenses.  If  they  were  a  little  short,  they  would  be  a  little  more  economical. 

Question. —  Would  it  result  in  failing  the  life  insurance  companies  and  the  savings-banks? 

Answer. —  If  it  were  to  come  suddenly,  perhaps  it  might.  [Laughter.]  In  return  for  them 
we  should  get  something  better, —  a  state  of  society  abounding  in  wealth,  in  which  the  causes  of 
greed  and  selfishness  would  be  so  far  removed  that  there  would  be  no  such  thing  as  widows  and 
orphans  in  want.  [Great  applause.]—  J?e/ort  of  Boston  Herald,  Feb.  23,  1889  . 


I 


he  has  added  to  his  farm  by  ditching,  draining,  fencing, 
planting,  and  fertilizing  it  ?  And,  if  the  teamster  may  sell 
his  horse  and  wagon,  may  not  the  farmer  sell  his  improved 
land?  and  in  either  case  should  not  the  rights  of  the  original 
owner  go  to  the  purchaser? 

In  every  community  that  has  passed  the  pioneer  stage  of 
development  the  labor  of  man  has  been  blended  inseparably 
with  the  land ;  and  until  the  region  becomes  again  a  wilder¬ 
ness  it  cannot  be  withdrawn  from  it. 

Society  could  as  well  justify  its  action  in  stopping  the 
teamster  every  night  and  taking  his  earnings  as  taxes  as  in 
taking  the  entire  income  of  the  farmer.  In  either  case  the 
property  would  be  left  in  the  keeping  of  its  nominal  owner, 
but  only  for  the  purpose  of  reproducing  another  crop  for  the 
harvester  of  taxes. 

But  it  may  be  said  that,  under  the  existing  order,  society 
now  compels  the  teamster  to  yield  a  part  of  his  earnings  in 
the  form  of  taxes,  and  that,  under  the  new  conditions,  he 
must  still  live  on  land,  and  either  as  owner  or  tenant,  in  the 
form  of  taxes  or  rent,  he  would  still  pay  his  part  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  charges.  To  this  it  may  be  answered  that  under  the 
present  order  there  is  no  one  so  poor,  not  sheltered  at  the 
public  expense,  who  does  not  in  some  form  and  in  some  de¬ 
gree  contribute  to  the  support  of  government.  Our  team¬ 
ster  cannot  now  escape  an  indirect  payment  for  public  pur¬ 
poses,  even  if  he  lodges  beneath  his  wagon  standing  in  the 
highway.  The  food  he  eats,  the  clothes  he  must  wear,  are 
all  charged  with  taxes,  which  he  pays  when  he  purchases  the 
commodities. 

But  the  new  method  may  make  a  more  equitable  distribu¬ 
tion  of  the  public  burden. 

I  Let  us  compare  the  system  of  to-day  and  that  which  is 

proposed.  Mr.  Croesus  lives  at  the  Vendome.  He  has 
^1,000, OCX)  in  credit  property,  the  bonds  of  Western  States, 
I  cities,  and  railways.  Government  compels  him  to  pay 

^15,000  a  year.  Mr.  Yeoman  has  a  farm  worth  $3,500  and 
stock  worth  $500.  His  annual  contribution  is  $60.  The 
man  with  the  team,  Mr.  Carter,  is  taxed  $3.  'Each  is  as¬ 
sessed  a  poll  tax  of  $2.00;  and  each  formerly  paid  2  cents 
tax  to  United  States  with  every  pound  of  sugar  bought  for 


2 


the  use  of  their  families  until  the  McKinley  tariff  law  placed 
that  article  on  the  free  list.  Each  pays  indirect  taxes  upon 
rental  and  articles  of  consumption.  The  indirect  assess¬ 
ments  bear  more  heavily  on  Mr.  Carter  than  upon  Mr.  Yeo¬ 
man,  and  with  much  greater  weight  upon  both  than  upon 
Mr.  Croesus.  The  reason  is  that  a  much  larger  proportion 
of  their  earnings  must  go  for  rent,  fuel,  food,  and  clothing 
than  is  required  from  the  income  of  their  more  fortunate 
fellow-citizen. 

For  this  there  seems  to  be  no  remedy.  Certainly,  Mr. 
George’s  scheme  does  not  furnish  one.  His  promise  is  that, 
with  his  reform,  poverty  cannot  exist.  We  have  only  his 
word  for  that.  You  will  fail  to  find  any  demonstration  of 
it  that  should  convince  a  careful  investigator. 

Under  the  new  order  of  things  Mr.  Croesus  pays  no  di¬ 
rect  tax  except  a  poll  tax.  His  indirect  taxes  increase;  but 
in  the  price  of  board  at  the  hotel,  and  his  other  expenditures, 
it  would  be  a  wild  estimate  that  would  put  the  amount  above 
$1,000.  He  may  thank  Mr.  George  for  $39,000  net  annual 
income  instead  of  $25,000,  which  was  all  he  had  left  after 
paying  his  taxes  under  the  old  system. 

Mr.  Yeoman  finds  that  his  tax  bill  calls  for  more  than  his 
entire  income.  He  attempts  to  raise  the  price  of  the  prod¬ 
ucts  of  his  farm  to  meet  it.  He  is  met  in  the  market  by 
immense  quantities  of  butter,  cheese,  corn,  oats,  and  hay, 
attracted  there  by  advanced  prices  from  countries  which 
have  not  yet  reformed.  He  must  sell  at  the  market  price, 
and  pay  the  whole  sum  to  the  tax-gatherer.  The  result 
must  be  that  he  will  abandon  the  least  profitable  part  of  his 
farm,  let  it  grow  to  bushes  and  weeds,  and  confine  himself  to 
the  cultivation  of  fruits  and  those  products  that  would  be 
injured  by  keeping  or  railroad  transportation,  and  for  which, 
in  their  best  state,  Mr.  Croesus  and  those  of  his  social  class 
will  pay  remunerative  prices. 

Mr.  Carter  will  no  doubt  wonder  how  it  is,  when  he  is  re¬ 
lieved  of  all  assessments  but  a  poll  tax,  that  he  cannot  have 
as  much  money  as  formerly.  He  probably  will  not  get  be¬ 
yond  the  belief  that  it  is  because  “everything  costs  so  much 
nowadays.” 

But  those  who  can  look  below  the  surface  will  see  that. 


13 


when  the  rich  pay  much  less,  the  poor  must  pay  much  more 
*  than  their  share  of  the  cost  of  government. 

But  the  vacant  city  house  lot,  that  standard  subject  of  the 
theorists  of  the  George  School,  where  the  holder  has  received 
“the  unearned  increment,” — has  he  a  right  to  it  He  has 
the  same  right  that  an  iron  merchant  has,  when  the  course 
of  trade  advances  the  stock  he  is  holding  lo  per  cent.  The 
labor  of  the  community  bestowed  or  reflected  on  that  bit  of 
our  earth  has  been  bought  and  paid  for  by  its  holder ;  and  it 
is  as  fair  an  object  for  the  chances  of  business  as  is  the  stock 
of  hardware. 

A  striking  instance  of  the  effect  of  labor  in  the  vicinity  of 
land  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  natural  advantages  of  Bos¬ 
ton  Common  were  known-  to  the  Puritans  four  years  before, 
in  December,  1634,  Mr.  Blackstone  sold  it  for  ^150.  Except 
for  the  purpose  of  ornament  it  has  remained  unimproved  to 
this  time. 

A  moderate  estimate  of  its  value  to-day  for  business  pur¬ 
poses  is  $25,000,000.  But  to  every  true  Bostonian  it  is  be¬ 
yond  all  price,  to  be  forever  kept  as  a  sacred  inheritance 
from  the  fathers  of  the  cjty  to  their  children. 

The  value  of  the  Common  and  the  corner  lot  have  come 
from  the  labor  of  no  man  or  generation  of  men. 

Clergymen,  lawyers,  doctors,  merchants,  mechanics, 
farmers,  and  laborers,  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago,  made 
up  the  working  force  of  Boston.  They  were  an  associated 
body  of  men, —  a  community.  Their  successors  are  such 
to-day.  First  at  the  North,  then  at  the  West,  then  at  the 
South  End  of  the  city,  now  behind  our  Public  Garden,  they 
have  made  land  valuable  by  their  residence  and  labor  upon 
it  ;  and  society  has  no  more  right  to  the  increase  they  cre¬ 
ated  than  it  was  called  upon  to  make  good  the  loss  they  sus¬ 
tained  when  a  change  in  the  fashionable  quarter  transferred 
values  to  another  location. 

There  are  those  not  yet  in  middle  age  who  were  born  in 
dwellings  at  the  South  End  that  cost  $30,000,  which  sold  for 
less  than  half  that  sum  when  their  occupants  removed  to 
the  more  fashionable  Back  Bay. 

Since  Boston  was  settled,  each  worker,  in  his  vocation,  has 
aided  the  advancement  of  the  community;  and  each,  paying 


14 


his  share  of  the  cost  of  public  improvements,  has,  as  really 
as  those  who  labored  on  them,  helped  to  make  the  value  of 
the  corner  lot.  And  that  lot  stands  charged  in  its  price 
with  the  cost  of  all  this  labor,  and  also  for  interest  on  its 
purchase  moneys  and  its  contributions  for  taxes.  Whoever 
buys  it  pays  for  the  labor  that  has  made  it  valuable,  and  is 
entitled  to  whatever  profit  it  may  bring ;  for,  from  the  time 
that  Winthrop  landed  to  this  hour,  the  gates  of  the  city  have 
been  open.  Almost  any  one  could  join  the  community,  and, 
joining,  had  the  right  to  make  himself  the  equal  of  any  man 
in  it,  if  he  could.  Every  man  of  every  generation  might 
have  bought  the  corner  lot  if  he  would  pay  the  price 
of  it. 

And  then,  too,  society  has  had  a  great  advantage  under 
the  present  system  that  it  could  never  have  under  that  of 
Mr.  George.  Should  all  the  income  of  land  be  taken  away, 
one  lot  would  be  as  valuable  as  another,  except  for  its  nat¬ 
ural  advantages.  Consequently,  the  choice  spots  that  nature 
has  made  would  be  taken,  and  the  sterile  and  the  low, 
marshy  districts  lie  waste.  There  would  be  no  attempt  to 
subdue  the  earth  except  in  a  very. limited  sense,  for  there 
could  be  no  profit  in  it.  The  most  valuable  land  of  London 
was  an  unreclaimed  marsh  in  the  time  of  Charles  II.,  and 
more  than  $100,000,000  of  Boston  valuation  is  found  where 
thirty  years  ago  the  stagnant  waters  of  the  Back  Bay  cov¬ 
ered  the  great  cesspool  of  the  city.  There  is  plenty  of  land 
even  in  the  city  of  Boston,  waiting  the  improvement  that 
labor  can  bestow,  some  of  it  so  cheap  that,  for  the  price  of 
sixty  days’  work  of  an  unskilled  laborer,  I  can  put  him  in 
possession  of  a  house  lot  within  the  city  limits,  and  ten  min¬ 
utes’  walk  from  a  railroad  station.* 

Nothing  we  call  property  is  so  valuable  as  land,  when  it  is 
needed  ;  nothing  so  valueless  as  land,  where  it  is  not  wanted. 

Let  me  break  the  monotony  of  my  argument  by  illustra¬ 
tions  of  this  truism.  A  few  years  since,  with  a  part  of  my 
family,  I  was  in  the  habit  of  spending  my  summer  vacations 

♦A  leading  dealer  in  real  estate  in  a  suburban  ward  of  Boston,  through  which  two  lines  of 
steam  railroads  pass  with  numerous  trains  for  the  accommodation  of  local  travel,  at  an  expense  of 
from  five  to  ten  cents  per  trip,  in  answer  to  an  inquiry  writes  as  follows  :  “  I  think  a  fair  state¬ 
ment  would  be  that  for  sixty  days’  labor,  say  $ioo,  a  desirable  house  lot  can  be  obtained,  varying 
with  location  from  2,000  or  2,500  to  5,000  square  feet  in  size,  and  within  ten  minutes  of  trans¬ 
portation  facilities.” 


15 


in  the  lovely  town  of  Shelburne.  One  year  on  our  arrival 
we  missed  the  daughter  of  the  house.  She  had  married,  and 
her  father  had  bought  for  her  home  a  farm  separated  from 
his  own  by  the  beautiful  Androscoggin.  It  had  been  the 
home  of  an  aged  couple,  whose  children,  as  they  grew  up, 
left  the  New  Hampshire  hills  for  the  cities  and  the  West. 
At  the  death  of  the  last  parent  the  farm  was  sold.  Making 
the  wedding  visit,  we  found  the  buildings  a  comfortable 
cottage  that  would  cost  about  ^1,000  to  build  in  this  vicinity, 
and  a  large  barn,  almost  new,  that  would  cost  at  least  $500. 
The  land  about  the  dwelling  was  well  cleared,  and  the  flavor 
of  the  Red  Astracan  apples  from  the  orchard  still  lingers  in 
my  memory.  The  grounds  consisted  of  more  than  100  acres 
of  land,  much  of  it  covered  with  a  good  growth  of  sugar- 
maples  and  other  hard  woods,  interspersed  with  those  of 
the  evergreen  variety.  This  rural  home  was  in  the  midst  of 
the  most  magnificent  natural  scenery.  Adams  and  Madison 
but  four  miles  away,  great  Washington,  “the  crown  of  New 
England,”  but  eight  miles  distant. 

Walking  the  short  two  miles  between  the  home  of  our 
host  and  that  of  his  daughter,  we  crossed  the  river,  and  saw 
the  glorious  view  from  Lead-mine  Bridge,  which  Starr  King 
says  is  “one  of  the  loveliest  pictures  ...  on  the  earth.” 
During  my  stay  I  was  visited  by  a  friend,  my  cotrustee  of  a 
Boston  savings-bank.  I  pointed  out  the  estate,  I  told  him 
of  its  area,  reminded  him  that  the  depot  at  Gorham  was  less 
than  five  miles  away,  and  asked  what  amount  of  money  our 
bank  could  safely  loan  on  mortgage  of  the  estate.  With  care¬ 
ful  consideration  he  answered  ^1,000.  The  whole  property 
had  been  bought  for  $750,  with  only  a  small  part  of  the  pur¬ 
chase  money  paid  in  cash. 

As  a  counter-illustration  let  me  tell  the  story  of  the  great 
land  speculation  of  the  Commonwealth.  In  1856  the  State 
was  the  owner  of  about  100  acres  of  flats  west  of  the  Public 
Garden  in  Boston.  The  city  had  been  draining  into  the 
basin  in  which  they  were  situated  from  the  early  colonial 
times  ;  and  in  1821  its  waters  were  shut  out  from  the  flow  of 
the  tide  by  “the  mill-dam,”  now  Beacon  Street. 

In  conjunction  with  the  Water  Power  Company,  which 
held  the  right  to  flow  these  flats  “forever,”  it  was  deter- 


i6 


mined  to  fill  them  with  gravel  brought  in  from  Needham  by 
the  Boston  &  Albany  Railroad  Company.  In  exchange  for 
the  right  of  drainage,  filled  land  to  the  value  of  $470,000  was 
granted  to  the  city.  To  the  Institute  of  Technology,  the 
Natural  History  Society,  and  other  institutions  were  given 
land  exceeding  in  value  $350,000.  In  filling,  improving,  and 
selling  60  per  cent,  of  the  land,  and  filling  and  making  the 
other  40  per  cent,  into  avenues,  streets,  and  passageways,  the 
State  expended  $1,642,000.  Fifty-three  acres  sold  realized 
$5,084,000,  leaving  a  clear  profit  to  the  treasury  of  $3,442,- 
000.  This  part  of  the  old  Back  Bay  basin  has  become  the 
fashionable  residential  quarter  of  the  city.  Before  the  im¬ 
provement  it  would  have  been  a  dear  purchase  at  anything 
above  a  nominal  price  of,  say,  $100,000.  Under  the  Henry 
George  system  it  would  have  been  absolutely  worthless, — 
worse  than  worthless  :  it  would  have  called  for  large  sums 
of  public  money  to  prevent  it  from  becoming  a  menace  to 
the  health  of  the  community.  At  the  last  assessment  with 
which  I  was  officially  connected,  that  of  1892,  the  land  value 
of  this  tract,  excluding  the  buildings,  was  $19,246,800.  Had 
the  happy  time  that  George  promises  antedated  1856,  the 
flats  would  never  have  been  improved.  And,  upon  his  own 
theory,  the  land  and  the  increased  value  given  to  it  by  the 
costly  buildings  erected  on  it  should  never  be  taxed  ;  for 
all,  except  possibly  the  first  $100,000,  is  the  product  of 
labor. 

In  the  western  part  of  our  State  lies  the  county  of  Berk¬ 
shire. 

It  stretches  from  Vermont  to  Connecticut.  Its  550,- 
000  acres  are  about  one-eighth  of  the  area  of  our  State.  Its 
broad  expanse  of  nearly  1,000  square  miles  (three-fourths 
the  size  of  the  State  of  Rhode  Island)  includes  one-third  of 
all  the  land  of  Massachusetts  between  the  Connecticut 
River  and  the  State  of  New  York. 

Here,  if  anywhere  in  our  Commonwealth,  is  that  natural 
land  to  which  the  followers  of  George  might  claim  that  man¬ 
kind  is  entitled.  The  fact  that  men  have  carried  two  great 
lines  of  railroads  through  it,  and  have  tunnelled  the  Hoosac 
Mountain  to  make  a  way  for  one  of  them,  has  somewhat 
unsettled  the  conditions,  as  has  the  building  of  one  of  our 


7 


youngest  cities,  Pittsfield,  and  the  great  towns  of  North 
Adams,  Great  Barrington,  and  Lenox,  within  its  borders. 
But,  including  the  value  of  these  four  municipalities  (which 
is  more  than  one-half  of  all  in  the  shire),  and  making  no 
allowance  for  the  increased  value  of  the  land  from  the  build¬ 
ings  and  other  improvements  of  the  farming  towns, —  in 
short,  taking  the  land  values  just  as  they  were  found  at  the 
assessment  of  May  i,  1892,  and  they  amount  to  only  15,- 
098,773,  less  than  79  per  cent,  of  the  little  man-made  100 
acres  in  Boston,  created  under  the  conditions  under  which 
land  is  now  held. 

That  there  are  good  reasons  why  there  should  be  govern¬ 
mental  restriction  to  prevent  the  holding  of  enormous  areas 
by  one  person  or  family,  all  who  are  disinterested  will 
admit. 

But  in  a  well-ordered  State,  under  republican  forms  of  gov¬ 
ernment,  such  holdings  are  impossible,  except  in  the  first  or 
early  settlement  of  new  countries.  Apply  the  correction 
needed  then  and  there,  and  you  can  safely  leave  the  self-in¬ 
terest  of  the  members  of  the  new  State  to  devise  measures 
to  prevent  the  inordinate  holding  of  unimproved  land. 

The  city  lot  must  double  every  ten  years,  or  interest  and 
taxes  will  consume  its  value,  and  its  owner  will  carry  it  at  a 
loss.  Near  my  home  is  land  that  has  been  held  by  one  fam¬ 
ily  for  more  than  eighty  years.  It  has  risen  to  be  worth  50 
cents  a  square  foot.  The  annual  taxes,  sewer,  and  sidewalk 
assessments  have  made  it  too  heavy  to  be  carried  longer, 
even  by  one  of  our  wealthiest  families.  A  few  years  since 
(and  as  soon  as  there  was  public  need  of  it)  they  began  to 
unload.  If  they  reckon  fairly  with  themselves,  they  will 
doubtless  find  that  the  property  has  cost  at  least  five  times 
what  they  will  receive  for  it. 

But  what  of  the  plan,  if,  with  all  its  injustice  and  hardship, 
its  spoliation  of  one  class,  its  remission  of  taxes  to  the 
wealthy  holders  of  personal  property,  its  increase  of  the  in¬ 
direct  taxes  of  the  poor,  it  cannot  be  made  to  yield  the  rev¬ 
enues  needed  by  the  State?  I  will  endeavor  to  demonstrate 
that  such  is  the  fact,  and  relieve  you  of  further  atten¬ 
tion. 

In  Boston  we  have  land  (exclusive  of  buildings)  assessed 


i8 


at  as  high  a  rate  as  $130  a  square  foot.  It  would  be  easy 
in  some  locations  to  find  an  acre  worth  more  than  $2,000,- 
000.^ 

It  must  be  conceded  that,  if  the  scheme  will  not  work  in 
a  community  where  such  conditions  are  found,  it  will  not 
work  anywhere. 

Let  us  try  it  by  the  1892  valuation.!  The  total  value  of 
the  land  was  ^399, i/OT/S-  From  this  amount  we  must  de¬ 
duct  ;^5,843,ioo,  marsh  and  flats;  for  no  man  will  spend 
money  to  reclaim  them  if  government  is  to  take  all  the  in¬ 
come.  Again  drop  ^46,869,500,  the  value  of  vacant  land, 
since  no  one  will  buy  it  or  take  it  until  needed  for  instant 
improvement ;  and  less  than  30  per  cent,  of  the  city’s  as¬ 
sessed  area  is  now  classed  as  improved  land.  A  still  further 
reduction  should  be  made  for  large  tracts  connected  with 
the  dwellings  of  our  suburban  wards,  which,  classed  as  im¬ 
proved,  would  be  abandoned  under  the  system  of  Mr. 
George. 

That  this  reduction  is  justified  is  shown  by  comparing  the 
area  to  each  building  in  the  Sixteenth  Ward  in  the  heart  of 
the  city,  where  the  average  is  only  1,791  square  feet,  with 
that  of  Ward  Twenty-three,  one  of  the  outlying  wards  where 
the  average  rises  to  4,997  square  feet.  The  value  might  be 
ten  or  fifteen  million  dollars  at  present  -prices,  but  we  will 
not  include  it.  Let  it  pass. 

Land  values  must  shrink  enormously  when  the  entire  in¬ 
come  is  taken  for  taxes  :  how  much  must  be  a  matter  of 
opinion.  Under  such  circumstances  the  land  could  hardly 
be  expected  to  hold  one-half  its  present  value ;  but,  to  be 
safe,  say  it  will  lose  only  one-third,  and  we  find  a  loss  of  the 

*  Assessed  value,  May  i,  1892,  of  block  in  city  of  Boston,  bounded  northerly  by  Winter 
Street,  easterly  by  Washington  Street,  southerly  by  Temple  Place,  and  westerly  by  Tremont 
Street,  97,652  square  feet  of  land,  $7,157,800,  This  is  $73.29  per  foot,  $3,192,512  per  acre.  The 
buildings  upon  this  area  have  an  assessed  value  of  $982,200,  equal  to  $10.05  foot,  $437,778  per 
acre.  Or  for  land  and  buildings  $83.34  per  foot,  $3,630,290  per  acre. 

t  Assessed  value  of  land  (exclusive  of  buildings)  in  the  city  of  Boston,  May  i,  1892  :  — 

194,907,530  sq.  ft.  occupied  land,  ^346,457i575  =  $1-769  per  ft.  4,474  acres  $77,059  per  acre 

508,544,966“  “  vacant  land,  46,869,500=  0.092  “  “  11,675  “  4,012  “  “ 

112,050,454  “  “  marsh  and  flats,  5,843,100=  0.052  “  “  2,571  “  2,272  “  “ 

815,502,950  sq.  ft.  land,  marsh  andflats,  $399,170,175  =  $0,489  per  ft.  18,720  acres  $21,323  per  acre. 

Assessed  value  of  land  (exclusive  of  buildings)  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  May  i,  1892, 
4,504,273  acres,  $878,276,021,  equal  to  $195  per  acre. 


19 


vacant  land,  marsh,  and  flats,  ^52,712,600,  shrinkage  of  im¬ 
proved  land  values,  $115,485,858,  a  total  of  $168,198,458. 
To  give  the  scheme  every  advantage  and  to  reach  round 
numbers,  reduce  the  loss  12  per  cent.,  drop  it  from  $168,- 
198,458  to  $146,457,575’,  and,  having  given  up  over  $30,000, 
000  that  might  fairly  be  included  against  the  plan,  we  have 
left  for  assessment,  under  the  George  system,  land  values  of 
exactly  $200,000,000. 

Ground  rents  are  not  more  profitable  than  other  safe  in¬ 
vestments.  Government  bonds  yield  less  than  3  per  cent. 
Savings-bank  investments  about  Call  the  income  of  the 
land  4  per  cent.  ;  and,  when  Mr.  George’s  tax  officials  have 
got  it  all,  they  will  have  collected  an  amount  more  than 
$3,800,000  short  of  what  Boston  needed  for  last  year’s  tax 
levy. 

But  the  State  tax  on  Boston  for  .1892  was  only  $680,744, 
because  of  a  State  revenue,  mainly  from  the  assessment  of 
corporations,  national  banks,  and  savings-banks,  of  more 
than  $1,000,000  in  excess  of  the  State  tax  on  all  the  cities 
and  towns  of  the  Commonwealth.^  Losing  this  income 
under  the  George  scheme,  the  State  must  call  on  Boston 
for  an  additional  $1,066,524;  and  the  shortage  will  rise  to 
$4,650,000. 

But  this  is  not  all.  Boston  could  not  have  paid  its  bills 
with  $11,805,404  if  it  had  not  received  as  income  the  collec¬ 
tions  by  the  State  of  the  taxes  of  Boston  citizens  upon 
their  holdings  in  Massachusetts  corporations.  This  direct 
income,  paid  to  the  city  in  money,  would  be  lost  under  the 
George  single  tax.  In  1892  it  amounted  to  $960,671.99. 
Adding  its  sum  to  the  shortage  already  ascertained,  and  the 
deficiency  after  the  last  dollar  has  been  collected  under  the 
single  tax  plan  is  over  $5,600,000.  A  deficit  of  over  45  per 
cent,  in  each  annual  assessment  would  seem  to  be  a  very 
rapid  progress  to  municipal  poverty. 

Let  us  try  the  plan  by  the  statistics  of  Woburn,  a  small 
semi-rural  city,  having  good  railroad  connections,  with  depots 
within  ten  miles  of  the  State  House.  It  is  a  fair  state- 

*The  sources  of  this  revenue  are  shown  in  the  table  in  the  foot-note  on  page  6.  The  taxes 
on  “  corporate  excess,”  ”  bank  stock  excess,”  and  “liquor  licenses,”  are.  divided  between  the 
State  and  its  municipalities.  All  other  assessments  by  agents  of  the  State  are  solely  for  the 
treasury  of  the  Commonwealth. 


20 


ment  to  say  that  in  Boston  land  values  are  6o  and  buildings 
40  per  cent,  of  real  estate,  and  that  in  Woburn  the  condi¬ 
tions  are  reversed,  land  40,  buildings  60  per  cent. 

At  first  glance  it  would  appear  that  the  younger  would 
suffer  less  than  the  older  city  under  the  new  method,  as  a 
larger  proportion  of  the  property  would  be  exempt  This 
would  be  true  if  the  land  could  be  made  to  yield  the  re¬ 
quired  revenue. 

But  all  the  income  of  land  under  the  most  favorable  condi¬ 
tions  falls  far  short  of  producing  the  ordinary  tax  levy.  So 
the  problem  being, —  How  can  the  city  annually  raise  the 
money  it  must  have, —  the  test  will  show  the  smaller  in  far 
greater  financial  difficulties  than  the  larger  municipality. 

Woburn  had  in  1892  a 

Land  valuation  of  ....  $3,186,239,  producing  a  tax  at  $15.70  of  $50,028 
Building  valuation  of .  .  .  .  4,409,055  “  “  “  _  69,222 

Personal  property  valuation  of  1,737,229  “  “  “  27,276 

Polls .  3,743  “  “  “  7486 

Total  tax  ....  $154,012 


But  the  State  assessed  and  paid  to  the  city  corporation 
taxes  that  amounted  to  ^3,290.75,  and  national  bank  taxes 
that  amounted  to  $4,253.68,  so  it  appears  that  there  were 
assessed  in  the  year  1892,  for  the  city  of  Woburn,  taxes 
amounting  to  $161,556. 

The  city  has  an  area  of  7,651  acres,  which  at  its  assessed 
value  is,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  $400  an  acre.  Upon  this  area 
there  are  2,344  dwelling-houses. 

Under  the  proposed  scheme  no  one  will  have  more  land  in 
connection  with  a  dwelling  than  is  absolutely  needed. 

It  will  be  remembered  that,  under  the  pressure  of  the 
present  system,  the  area  to  each  building  in  a  ward  in  the 
heart  of  Boston  was  only  an  average  of  1,791  square  feet. 
But  let  us  give  the  plan  every  chance,  and  assume  that  5,000 
square  feet  will  be  retained  with  every  dwelling,  269  acres 
will  be  used.  I  do  not  know  how  many  factories  and  other 
miscellaneous  buildings  there  are  in  the  city  ;  but,  like  the 
dwellings,  the}'  will  occupy  the  smallest  area  possible.  To 
allow  that  they  will  take  one-third  the  space  used  by  the 


21  ROXBURY, 

dwellings  would  seem  to  be  ample.  Possibly,  a  little  land 
might  be  taken  for  market-gardening ;  but  we  will  say  that 
360  acres  will  be  used,  and  the  rest  abandoned.  Allowing 
for  an  increased  State  tax  of  ^11,839,  which  the  loss  of  State 
revenue  will  require,  the  area  must  produce,  upon  the  plan 
of  Mr.  George,  ^173,395  per  year,  in  order  to  meet  the  finan¬ 
cial  needs  of  the  city.  Assume  4  per  cent,  on  the  value  to 
be  a  fair  rental,  and  the  occupied  land  must  be  worth  over 
^4,000,000  to  produce  the  required  amount.  This  is  30 
cents  a  foot,  over  $13,000  an  acre,  more  than  thirty  times  as 
much  as  the  average  price  of  Woburn  land  to-day,  with  all 
the  labor  that  has  been  bestowed  upon  it. 

With  the  entire  income  taken,  the  land  would  only  be  val¬ 
uable  for  its  necessary  use  in  sustaining  the  buildings  which 
will  yield  a  return.  Under  such  conditions  the  man  who 
would  take  an  acre,  and  pay  the  taxes  on  it,  would  be  a 
public  benefactor.  With  7,300  acres  to  be  had  for  the  tak¬ 
ing,  surely  it  is  a  liberal  estimate  to  allow  that  the  occupied 
land  would  be  worth  as  much  as  the  average  of  to-day ;  that 
is,  $400  an  acre.  360  acres  at  $400  would  amount  to  $144,- 
000.  Ground  rent  at  4  per  cent.,  $5,760.  Call  it  6  per 
cent.,  $8,640.  Can  any  one  indicate  from  what  source  could 
come  the  deficiency  of  $164,700.^ 

But  some  zealous  follower  of  Mr.  George  will  answer  all 
that  can  be  said  as  to  the  impracticability  of  the  scheme, 
with  the  statement  that  all  men  must  live  on  land,  and  that 
the  plan  would  work  if  the  necessary  tax  be  apportioned 
upon  as  much  of  it  as  should  be  used,  and  its  occupants 
compelled  to  pay  the  assessment. 

To  oblige  the  land-holder  to  yield  more  than  100  per  cent, 
of  his  income,  because  all  must  use  some  part  of  the  earth’s 
surface,  would  be  on  a  par  with  the  morality  of  a  govern¬ 
ment  which  should  send  its  officer  to  a  man  who  had  money, 
with  the  statement  that  air  was  necessary  to  his  existence, 
and  with  orders  to  deprive  him  of  his  share  of  it  until  he 
produced  the  needed  amount. 

An  easily  understood  illustration  will  demonstrate  the 
amount  of  the  robbery  and  the  confiscation  of  other  than 
land  values  that  must  follow  the  imposition  of  the  single 
tax,  even  in  Boston,  where  our  land  is  most  valuable.  I 


22 


have  an  estate  where  as  nearly  as  may  be  the  lot  of  land 
cost  ^1,000  and  the  building  ^3,000,  a  total  value  of  ^4,000. 
In  the  assessment  of  1892,  with  the  rate  at  $12.90 ’per 
$1,000,  the  tax  was  $51.60.  The  valuation  of  the  taxable 
property  of  the  city  for  that  year,  including  its  share  of  Mas¬ 
sachusetts  corporate  stock,  bank  shares,  and  ships  in  foreign 
trade,*  was  $958,862,412.  Boston’s  share  of  the  assessable 
value  of  the  deposits  in  our  savings-banks  and  other  personal 
property  taxed  by  the  State  would  carry  its  aggregate  valu¬ 
ation  above  one  thousand  million  dollars,  or  five  times  the 
amount  of  the  basis  of  assessment  under  the  George  system. 
My  tax  must  consequently  increase  fivefold,  to  produce  the 
amount  needed  for  the  annual  tax. 

My  rent  is  $400  a  year.  Clearly,  the  building  produces 
$300  of  this  income  and  the  land  $100.  But  Mr.  George’s 
tax  officials  demand,  under  the  name  of  a  land  tax,  $258, 
—  more  than  1 50  per  cent,  in  excess  of  the  entire  ground 
rent. 

As  no  one  will  build  or  rent  houses  unless  the  net  profit 
is  equal  to  the  interest  that  can  be  obtained  from  other  safe 
investments,  this  added  burden  of  taxes  must  be  carried  by 
my  tenants,  increasing  the  rent  to  be  paid  from  $400  to 
$600, —  an  advance  of  50  per  cent., —  with  national  taxes 
to  be  added,  and  with  indirect  assessments  increased  on 
account  of  increased  prices  occasioned  by  the  land  taxation 
of  the  premises  of  shop-keepers  and  traders  in  all  commod¬ 
ities. 

If  time  permitted,  it  might  be  profitable  to  trace  the  in¬ 
cidence  of  such  a  tax  scheme  further,  and  show  to  what 
extent  under  its  operation  the  rich  would  pay  much  less 
and  the  poor  much  more  than  under  the  methods  to  which 
we  are  accustomed.  Such  an  analysis  would  show  that  a 
tax  exclusively  on  land,  or  on  land  and  buildings,  would,  like 
a  tariff,  throw  its  burden  on  the  masses  of  the  people  in 
proportion  to  their  consumption.  A  man  would  be  taxed, 
not  upon  the  relative  amount  of  his  property,  but  according 
to  the  number  of  persons  in  the  family  he  must  shelter  and 
support. 

We  have  good  reason  for  remembering  with  gratitude  the 


Report  of  the  Assessors  of  Boston  for  1892,  p.  9. 


men  who  founded  here  “a  church  without  a  bishop,  a  state 
without  a  king.” 

Let  us  not  cease  to  be  thankful  that,  with  their  clear  ideas 
of  justice,  they  instituted  and  sent  down  to  us  a  system  for 
the  assessment  of  the  public  charges  that  requires  the  offi¬ 
cers  of  the  law  “to  levy  every  man  according  to  his  estate, 
and  with  consideration  of  all  other  his  abilities  whatsoever, 
and  not  according  to  the  number  of  his  persons.” 


